Olga Curtis v. ShinSachi Pharmaceutical Inc et al

Filing 31

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. GOVERNING LAW by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff Olga Curtis to SHOW CAUSE in writing by Monday, September 8, 2014, why the Court should apply California law to this action. No hearing will be held; Curtis shall respond in writing. Curtis should address issues such as California governmental-interest approach for conflict of laws, whether Idaho recognizes a trade-libel tort, and whether there are any inconsistencies between the intentional-interference claims under California and Idaho law. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. (lc). Modified on 8/28/2014. (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case № 2:14-cv-00591-ODW(SSx)

OLGA CURTIS,
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

14

SHINSACHI PHARMACEUTICAL INC.; GOVERNING LAW

15

SEUNGWOO SHIN; DOES 1–10,

16

inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff Olga Curtis moved for entry of default judgment

19

against Defendants ShinSachi Pharmaceutical Inc. and Seungwoo Shin.

(ECF

20

No. 24.) She argues that she is entitled to judgment on various common-law claims,

21

including trade libel, intentional interference with contract, and intentional

22

interference with prospective economic advantage. In asserting these claims, she

23

applies California law but provides no reason why California and not Idaho law

24

applies. Curtis alleges that she resides and has her principal place of business in

25

Idaho, which may establish that Idaho has an interest in having its law applied to this

26

action.

27

The Court also notes that it does not appear that Idaho recognizes a tort called

28

“trade libel,” though California does. This conflict must be resolved before the Court

1

can adjudicate Curtis’s claim under that name. But both California and Idaho seem to

2

apply identical elements for intentional-interference claims.

3

The Court therefore ORDERS Curtis to SHOW CAUSE in writing by

4

Monday, September 8, 2014, why the Court should apply California law to this

5

action. No hearing will be held; Curtis shall respond in writing. Curtis should address

6

issues such as California’ governmental-interest approach for conflict of laws,

7

whether Idaho recognizes a trade-libel tort, and whether there are any inconsistencies

8

between the intentional-interference claims under California and Idaho law. Failure to

9

timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

August 28, 2014

13
14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2